Osaid

We're going in circles. You do you.

Sounds good.

Yes, it could. There is no "I" claiming to be enlightened. I am simply just communicating with you using words. All words existentially point to one thing, which is your experience. If I gave you an answer, would it really be an answer? What is my answer going to be made of, experientially? Is it really going to explain things, or is it just going to make you imagine a new narrative on top of your experience? By the way, I totally get the sentiment. What the fuck is this? Do you think this feeling will go away once you come up with a smart answer?

Up to you. I already gave you solid heartfelt advice before, I think you get stuck in your head a lot, and you seem to kind of enjoy that. I think you would just turn my answers into more mental masturbation. It's fine, but if I feel like my answer isn't gonna help you then I won't engage.

Yes, I am enlightened.

Enlightenment is not: - A logical or metaphysical conclusion, like "this does not exist, therefore I am this." - Something that is "higher" or "lower" - Dualistic - A specific state or experience or quality - A logical or intellectual puzzle to solve - Philosophy - Something which becomes deeper or refined over time Enlightenment is: - One, singular, ever-present, undivided, etc. - Being aware, not being aware of logic > As an example, logic is not awareness, however, you can be aware of logic. > Enlightenment is the same as being aware of sound, touch, taste, etc. It is experiential, not a logical formula. - The immediate relinquishing of all metaphysical questions about experience, reality, and yourself. - Subtractive. Undefined. Not a thing. "Nothing." - Becoming aware (not through logic, but by looking at logic) that there is no "you", or any "things", at all. - Outside of past and future - What you always are, even if you imagine otherwise

I could define it in many ways, but it is simply just realizing that you cannot imagine yourself. You are nothing, as in, not a thing. You cannot be defined by anything you imagine that you are. This is the same as "realizing what you are" or realizing exactly what your experience is.

Again, enlightenment is not a model. In the same way that a glass of water is not a model. Or the sound of music is not a model. Or the taste of vanilla is not a model. The idea of "higher" and "lower" is always a mental model, because it is a duality created through thought and inference. Leo does not propose any "models of enlightenment", he does not even believe that enlightenment exists anymore.

You are talking about a model of "higher and lower consciousness." Enlightenment is not a dualistic model. Your question is mostly secular to Leo's own model of reality, not enlightenment.

You can't keep separating what is "absolute" from your current experience. You might as well say "you can't experience the absolute" or "the absolute doesn't exist." You say the distinction is useful but it isn't, because you are using the distinction to make an existential statement about the absolute. You are confusing the map for the territory. Nothing is relative, you're just imagining that. Nothing. Nothing. No thing. You are conflating survival, and life itself, with self. That is an uphill battle, to say the least. Language itself is made out of distinctions, that is how communication works. I am not conceding to anything by communicating. You made the distinction of "uniqueness" or "certain characteristics that people have", and I am pointing to that and saying "this is not self."

The ego does not exist. It is not anything. You are confusing the map for the territory. Realizing that the ego does not exist is "God." The ego is just what you think your experience is. You have no ego, you just think that you do. Thinking that you have an ego is what ego is, it is not anything beyond that.

Might as well ask: "Am I sinning against God by doing x?"

You are pointing out how an enlightened person "is a certain way" and comes in "different shapes and sizes", or at least you imagine that as a reference, which points out their "uniqueness". You seem to view this uniqueness as "self." It is the domain of life, which is lived out afterwards, yes. It means I know what I am, or what "I" is. It means I know exactly what my experience is. This should not be mistaken for knowledge, because knowledge is not inherent to experience. That is why you can seemingly lack knowledge and still exist. The "shift" with enlightenment is meta to knowledge, it informs what constitutes knowledge in the first place. It is seeing what knowledge is made up of, so to speak. You don't gain or lose knowledge in the process. You also cannot figure out what knowledge is with more knowledge, which is what happens in philosophy, because that is the old analogy of the hand trying to grasp itself. There are certain measurable differences but they are more like side-effects. For example, if you don't fear things as much, there will obviously be less cortisol produced in the body. I talk about some measurable symptoms here: Perhaps, but it actually becomes much easier. For example, when you aren't enlightened, you have to speculate and theorize about what emotions and mind are. When you are enlightened, all you have to do is look at your own experience and then try to explain it conceptually. Certain enlightened people will have a better conceptual grasp of what they are experiencing, because that is still in the domain of language and communication, which is not really inherent to enlightenment. An insight is an intellectual formulation derived from experience, it is not experiencing itself. This is why experiencing the same thing twice does not create the same insight again, it's because you already remember the insight in your intellect. So there are such differences that can occur. However, they have nothing to do with an actual difference in development in those areas, because you cannot develop having "no self" further, you either see that the self doesn't exist or you don't. And then, aside from that, anecdotally I also see that simply being able to see your perception clearly actually trickles into pretty much every other domain of life as a consequence. I would still have to learn how to make a pizza if I want to be a pizza chef, but perhaps my way of learning it would be enhanced. I think you only say this because you have some idea of "self" which is not actually what it is. Although if you wanna be funny about it and act like a wise mystical sage: "Yes, there is no one which transcends self, because the one who transcends it is the one that is transcended"

Something which does not exist cannot be changed. So in that way, yes. You don't gain or lose anything, you just recognize that nothing is there. Survival does not contradict no self. This is a very common conflation, but the idea that "no distinction" means you stop doing things is just not accurate. There is survival, and there is a recognition of survival, but there is no need for a self in the equation. There is uniqueness, which you seem to take as "self." The world is actually comprised of physical and biological "motivations" which have nothing to do with a self. For example, you do not need to imagine yourself to feel physical pain, because physical pain is not imagined. You do not need to imagine yourself to prefer the taste of vanilla over chocolate, because taste is not imagined. It is specifically the motivations which stem from imagining yourself, which are self. The rest are just existential and biological occurrences. You are doing something similar to looking at a tree or plant, and then saying "it has a self because it is trying to survive." You are anthropomorphizing it. The plant organism is simply operating in the world with its own unique intelligence, and that does not involve imagining or perceiving a self at all. I think part of what drives this conflation is the sense of control you think that you have. When you feel pain from touching a hot stove, you think that "you" moved your hand away, and so then you attribute that with a self. The part where you physically moved your hand away is not self, but the part where you think that you did that is self, because you are imagining ownership over the experience.

Thanks, figured.

Dunno if this is what you really think or what the context is, but this kind of logic is commonly used in an abusive relationship. "I did all of this for you, therefore you cannot complain." I am not saying the logic itself is inherently wrong or abusive, or that you are those things, but that it can be used for such things. The abusive relationship offers certain benefits which make you feel happy and comfortable, in return for being abused. Leaving the relationship often creates financial and environmental instability, which you can of course potentially recover from. This part especially highlights the dynamic: In certain situations, simple criticism will have actual objective consequences. For example, you criticize the cable company, causing them to change their policies and remove their services to you. In other cases it is just a vague moral stance which is self-imposed, like "I'm not allowed to complain because they did stuff for me in the past." In the former case, there is an obvious gray area, and so it is important to look at the pros and cons and then decide from there what you believe is the most intelligent thing to do. The latter case is essentially just emotional/psychological brainwashing, often imbued in the psyche by a narcissistic personality.

🎯🎯🎯

Plants and vegetables get expensive to produce and sell. Gonna have to stock up on lots of different plant stuff to feel satiated. If you're not satiated and properly nourished, you are also going to end up buying and eating more as a result. I imagine there could be a more efficient way to do it, but it will take some trial and error and research. Vegetarian is much more doable IMO, could easily live that way personally. On the other hand, meat is very very expensive for the type of nutrition you get from it. So I actually don't agree with the initial statement at all. I think it is badly worded, perhaps it is trying to say that being vegan is just more expensive than most diets in general.

Whatever makes you happy.

I didn't say it because I don't like you. I'm saying it because I care about you. You obviously enjoy making these topics, I don't mean to necessarily take that away from you, but it is worth questioning why it is enjoyable for you. What does it do for you?

Jokes aside, I really do think it is a serious issue, for you. Doesn't hurt to be real with yourself and others once in a while. Maybe there are benefits?

CEO of mental masturbation

Yes. No. Enlightenment is a permanent shift which prevents you from imagining yourself ever again. To clarify, your imaginative capacity stays the exact same, you just don't react to it as if it is yourself. You aren't prevented from imagining things, but it just makes absolutely no sense to do that in relation to yourself, so you don't engage in it anymore. It's like imagining a unicorn that you want to take care of, it doesn't make sense, so you just don't do it. Attachment is just a fear of losing things in the future. It is a specific type of fear based on an imaginary self. Consider that the reason Gautama showed up a certain way is because having no self and possessing something are not mutually exclusive. It is the fear spawned from possessing an object which is attachment, not the possession itself. If there is no self in the future to lose it, there is just the self which currently exists and has the possession. There can be a lot of self-inquiry and spiritual practices involved prior to it, but the actual event itself is very simple and it can occur in many different ways. It's like realizing you forgot your keys, it happens in an instant. It's not stoicism or just "fighting against your fears", it is clearly realizing that the entity which was fearing things does not exist, and then going on with your life. You just realize that there is nothing to transcend because the thing you were trying to transcend does not exist. It is not coming up with insight or logic about why you shouldn't fear something, it is seeing that there is literally nothing there to fear. All fears related to past and future experiences immediately vanish, because there is no imagined self to fear any of those things anymore. It's not a matter of willpower, it is a matter of just seeing what exists. There can be incremental improvements in how you handle fear, through certain insights and therapy. However, this is just more "belief-changing." It is still in the realm of beliefs. You're still just fighting beliefs with beliefs. Enlightenment is seeing through that entire structure as a whole by getting rid of the fundamental belief of "who you think you are."

All these ideas are ego. There is no one "taking themselves" to be a certain way. There is just knowledge about "who I am", which is just knowledge. When you realize you cannot turn yourself into knowledge, the ego goes away. Yes, because you believe that you can think about yourself. You have turned yourself into a concept, which is what self or ego is. This is conflation. Surviving is not the same as believing that you can die. Surviving is not death, therefore you can still engage in it. This also completely depends on what you personally desire. You can have some religious zealot who doesn't mind dying for their God or whatever, so this is not a good metric. You don't need death to be motivated to survive. The idea that having no self removes all your motivations is false. It just removes imagined fear relating to past or future. If you are being motivated by imagined fear, it will remove that.

Notice that there is ultimately only one decision, not two. Forget all your theorizing, you only ever experience one choice, which is the one that you pick. You don't make two decisions, you "pick." But what did you pick from? Your imagination? Do your choices vanish when you stop imagining? Contemplate!